For quite a long time now many Christian apologists (and other religious folks) have attempted to argue that intuition is the driving force behind their belief in a god, as well as their belief in "objective morality" (among other things). Some further argue that physical/demonstrable evidence is not (and should not be) required to justify belief. But is it reasonable to give intuition (presumably a psychological state) that much credence or philosophical weight when it comes to such questions? Why should we treat a psychological state as evidence for claims to things which are not psychological?

As an interesting side note, upon reading the article at Live Science, and taking the intuition challenge regarding the bat and ball that cost $1.10, I got it wrong! My intuition (prior to reflection) said the answer was $0.10. This was just one small example (amongst numerous examples) of how intuitions are often mistaken (especially when it comes to religious/supernatural claims) and I'm not convinced at all that we should trust intuition regarding claims to the supernatural, miraculous, or highly contested, controversial, or debated subjects of existence claims.

While I have learned that I have what seem to be intuitions (regarding how to fix broken mechanical and electrical devices, or troubleshooting the problem in the first place), they are are some combination of knowledge and learned instincts that I happen to have regarding very specific physical types of problems with machinery and electronics. I would not have those instincts if I did not have a broad knowledge base in relevant areas.

Since one cannot, by definition, have a broad knowledge base about the unknown, I'm thinking that a lot of guessing is going on.

The LiveScience math question is a nice case in point. People with a good math background are (I assume) less likely to get the question wrong. I know that the first time I heard it, I got it wrong, because I quickly jumped to a conclusion without giving it much thought. Luckily I haven't done the same thing with gods, but I can see how the same faulty process could be extended to other things. Though I wish it was as easy to explain why there are no gods as it is to explain why the answer is not ten cents.

If you come to a situation and have a good track record of dealing with it, your subconscious is IMO more likely to guide you correctly. If it's a situation that you've long struggled with, or where you feel conflicted (e.g., overlooking someone's bad points because you like other things about them), it probably won't turn out nearly as well.

I get hunches all the time, but try to resist acting on them. (In fact, I'm notorious for stalling until I've got lots and lots of data from multiple sources.) Overall, My intuition isn't much more useful than a coin toss.

I think it was intuition that lead me to not believe in religion. With out a complete understanding of religion, I began to intuitively conclude that certain things did not make sense. Take Noah story, I intuitively did not see how you could have taken that large a number of animals on one structure, But as I learned more about physics, construction, animal dietary requirements, thinking about the completeness of destruction a year of water covering all the lands of the earth and the recovery needed to actually replace the plants and animals to all parts of the globe I have confirmed my intuition pretty well. Thinking about the physical effort required to build a ship capable of transporting a years worth of food ,all flora and fauna, all completed by 8 people even in several hundred years seems a little bit difficult.

Thinking about how long it would take to load up all the animals of the world even with a really big door and guiding them to their respective space might have turned out to be a time consuming ordeal requiring perhaps weeks of food and 24 hour work days.

I think it was intuition that lead me to not believe in religion. With out a complete understanding of religion, I began to intuitively conclude that certain things did not make sense. Take Noah story, I intuitively did not see how you could have taken that large a number of animals on one structure, But as I learned more about physics, construction, animal dietary requirements, thinking about the completeness of destruction a year of water covering all the lands of the earth and the recovery needed to actually replace the plants and animals to all parts of the globe I have confirmed my intuition pretty well. Thinking about the physical effort required to build a ship capable of transporting a years worth of food ,all flora and fauna, all completed by 8 people even in several hundred years seems a little bit difficult.

Thinking about how long it would take to load up all the animals of the world even with a really big door and guiding them to their respective space might have turned out to be a time consuming ordeal requiring perhaps weeks of food and 24 hour work days.

All that and much, much more is covered on various counterapologetic web sites (as I'm sure you already know).

Apart from all the logistical stuff that simply doesn't make any sense and couldn't possibly work, I think one of my favorite observations came from Talk Origins: "The whole point of the flood was to rid the world of evil. Did it work?"

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Intuition, when applied to the subjects the OP is talking about, is untrustworthy. Recall the anecdote in ... crap, which book? God Delusion, or god is not Great? ... one of those books in which a young man was in the woods and heard a dreadful caterwauling. It sounded to him like the devil himself making a racket: that was his intuition. That event spurred him on to become a priest. Turns out what he heard was a "Devil Bird," so named because of it's nasty noise which sounds like it could be demonic.

Humans interpret sensory input and put it into a known/expected frame of reference. That fuels intuition, which is wrong *all the time*. Plus, we flat out imagine stuff.

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

Parking Places (above) has it right when he says the more you know about a subject, the more likely it is that your intuition will be correct.

Here is a story of intuition:

In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from Northwestern University. On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully.

He got down on one knee, inspected the elephant’s foot, and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it. As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot. The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments. Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away. Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.

Twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenage son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over to near where Peter and his son Cameron were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, then put it down. The elephant did that several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant. Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.

It probably wasn’t the same elephant.

There are two points:1. If you have not heard the story, your intuition will lead to think that the elephant was the same one2. Peter Davies’s intuition was wrong.

This leads to the conclusion that, as there are no gods, your intuition about them will be wrong. Intuition leads to apologists who, by the pure invention of what they call “facts” deduce the nature of a non-existent being.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:23:56 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I stand corrected, you can fit all the food and deal with feeding and sanitation for all land creatures. How could my intuition have been so wrong?

I got a kick out of this piece because it makes some plausible sense on a superficial cursory glance. They speak of how seeds could survive the flood and how animals could have ridden matts of vegetation. but something makes me think that after a year most of the vegetation would have become waterlogged and sunk. Seeds would have become waterlogged and not viable. They spoke about if the were in cages stacked one on top of the other and the that noah's family may not have needed to deal much with sanitation because the waste would simply fall through the cages. Of course I would think a year of having the cage above you crap and piss on you that would be a problem for both health and well being for the creatures below. They also do their volumetric calculations based upon this ship as if it were all open space. This is problematic because I would think the inner structure of this ship would have had a hell of alot of timber in it to simply support the giant structure and make it strong enough to withstand the buffeting of the ocean on a normal day, let alone during a flood of this magnitude.

I would love to talk to the clowns who wrote that piece and see what they had to say about some of the quick thoughts I had on the subject.

They also make some serious assumptions about the species being grouped together into the one genus where we do not need to have tigers, lions, house cats, and leopards, just pick one and let the others die. That kinda opens the door for some wicked evolution in the past few thousand years. It also does not really address what animals ate after the flood receeded

No one should believe in the supernatural without having a true supernatural experience. If there is such a thing.

RegardsDL

I'm curious; what would you define as a "true supernatural experience"?

Something impossible to explain within the bounds of nature and physics.

I, for instance, believe in telepathy because I did it twice. I see it as a natural thing or I could not do it, I cannot do the supernatural, ---- and Noetic science has basically proven it to be a true phenomenon.

I also believe in what I call a Godhead. It is a cosmic consciousness and I think it is what the old shaman found and tried to describe. The churches took that modest description and built it into the super God that they now try to sell.

There can be no proof of apotheosis. I have none but do not mind questions on any other aspect of what I claim.

I, for instance, believe in telepathy because I did it twice. I see it as a natural thing or I could not do it, I cannot do the supernatural, ---- and Noetic science has basically proven it to be a true phenomenon.

Noetic science, as defined by the Institute of Noetic Sciences (http://noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/) looks more like another flavor of feel-good New Age vagueness trying to ride the coattails of genuine science into respectability. Intuition is a poor guide for investigating how the universe really works; just look at the history of religion versus rational inquiry.

Quote

I also believe in what I call a Godhead. It is a cosmic consciousness and I think it is what the old shaman found and tried to describe. The churches took that modest description and built it into the super God that they now try to sell.

There can be no proof of apotheosis. I have none but do not mind questions on any other aspect of what I claim.

RegardsDL

Well, at least you admit up front you have no proof for your spiritual / religious view. That's more than a lot of believing visitors to this site are willing to do. As long as you're not also trying to impose that view on others while claiming it's the One Truth of Everything, I have no quarrel with you.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

I, for instance, believe in telepathy because I did it twice. I see it as a natural thing or I could not do it, I cannot do the supernatural, ---- and Noetic science has basically proven it to be a true phenomenon.

Noetic science, as defined by the Institute of Noetic Sciences (http://noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/) looks more like another flavor of feel-good New Age vagueness trying to ride the coattails of genuine science into respectability. Intuition is a poor guide for investigating how the universe really works; just look at the history of religion versus rational inquiry.

Quote

I also believe in what I call a Godhead. It is a cosmic consciousness and I think it is what the old shaman found and tried to describe. The churches took that modest description and built it into the super God that they now try to sell.

There can be no proof of apotheosis. I have none but do not mind questions on any other aspect of what I claim.

RegardsDL

Well, at least you admit up front you have no proof for your spiritual / religious view. That's more than a lot of believing visitors to this site are willing to do. As long as you're not also trying to impose that view on others while claiming it's the One Truth of Everything, I have no quarrel with you.

If telepathy was easy, Randy would have paid up a long time ago.

It is not. That is why so few admit to doing it. When I did it to my wife, she latter called it an assault. I agree with her as I felt the pain and pleasure the second and last time I did it. Many years ago now.

I am pleased I did not put you off too much. I argue more with so called believers than I do with atheists unless I get into one of my atheist topics. Like how atheists should form a church or organization as their experts and sociologists say they should, --- if they really want to do a good job against religions.

Any time someone claims something that I consider impossible, I have to wonder. If the claim is real, how could it be confirmed. If it is real and not confirmable, then it is the same as false, because, well, just because.

You're in luck though. I don't think anyone here has claimed to have telepathic powers before. However briefly. But if you could give us an example, that would be real nice of you. In lieu of that, I'll be forced to read your mind and since I don't know which of your brain cells hold that info, I might get into something personal. Just kidding. But if you are going to brag about telepathy, the least you can do is tell us a bit more about it so that when we start giving you a hard time, we'll all be on the same page.

It is not. That is why so few admit to doing it. When I did it to my wife, she latter called it an assault. I agree with her as I felt the pain and pleasure the second and last time I did it. Many years ago now.

So you think telepathy is possible, but so difficult it can't be proven to the JRF's satisfaction? Pardon me for not finding that a good enough explanation.

As I understand it, the conditions set by Randi and his associates for confirming psi powers are intended to eliminate any other agency (cheating). If telepathy and other extrasensory abilities truly exist and are replicable (as some people maintain), their practitioners should be able to meet those criteria.

Quote

I am pleased I did not put you off too much. I argue more with so called believers than I do with atheists unless I get into one of my atheist topics. Like how atheists should form a church or organization as their experts and sociologists say they should, --- if they really want to do a good job against religions.

RegardsDL

You're not off-putting at all. I'm curious as to how and why you think telepathy is possible; I'll start a new thread in the Science section for that. Drop by if you're interested.

I find the idea of an atheist "church" a bit silly too. It seems to me atheists are doing a decent job, overall, of coming together and organizing lately. Why bother calling such an organization a church?

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

Parking Places (above) has it right when he says the more you know about a subject, the more likely it is that your intuition will be correct.

Here is a story of intuition:

In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from Northwestern University. On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully. [...]

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant. Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.

Any time someone claims something that I consider impossible, I have to wonder. If the claim is real, how could it be confirmed. If it is real and not confirmable, then it is the same as false, because, well, just because.

You're in luck though. I don't think anyone here has claimed to have telepathic powers before. However briefly. But if you could give us an example, that would be real nice of you. In lieu of that, I'll be forced to read your mind and since I don't know which of your brain cells hold that info, I might get into something personal. Just kidding. But if you are going to brag about telepathy, the least you can do is tell us a bit more about it so that when we start giving you a hard time, we'll all be on the same page.

You knew I was going to say that, didn't you.

You will first have to suffer through my anecdotal story.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.I was a skeptic till the age of 39.I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

As to telepathy. I was stating facts, not bragging.

Telepathy is well described in the literature and I will not write you a book on it but will try to deal with any specific question you might have.

It is not. That is why so few admit to doing it. When I did it to my wife, she latter called it an assault. I agree with her as I felt the pain and pleasure the second and last time I did it. Many years ago now.

So you think telepathy is possible, but so difficult it can't be proven to the JRF's satisfaction? Pardon me for not finding that a good enough explanation.

As I understand it, the conditions set by Randi and his associates for confirming psi powers are intended to eliminate any other agency (cheating). If telepathy and other extrasensory abilities truly exist and are replicable (as some people maintain), their practitioners should be able to meet those criteria.

Quote

I am pleased I did not put you off too much. I argue more with so called believers than I do with atheists unless I get into one of my atheist topics. Like how atheists should form a church or organization as their experts and sociologists say they should, --- if they really want to do a good job against religions.

RegardsDL

You're not off-putting at all. I'm curious as to how and why you think telepathy is possible; I'll start a new thread in the Science section for that. Drop by if you're interested.

I find the idea of an atheist "church" a bit silly too. It seems to me atheists are doing a decent job, overall, of coming together and organizing lately. Why bother calling such an organization a church?

I claim to have done it twice and the only reasons I must believe in it is that I have two witnesses, my wife and I, who will swear to it. Without that having happened to me/us first, I would not give any veracity to my second telepathic communication with the cosmic consciousness.

Because of her confirming the reality of what I experienced, I cannot deny the second.

I will check for your O P.

As to an atheist church or organization, if you have not listened to the logic from key atheists and other sociological experts who know it takes organizations to fight organizations, then there is little I can tell you to convince you. Please view these two speakers.

Greatest, I appreciate your candor and willingness to admit all you have are anecdotes with respect to believing in telepathy. Again, if that's what you and your wife think is what happened between you and you're not trying to bilk others with it (aka Sylvia Brown and her ilk), or claiming that the JRF is conspiring against "real" psychics, then good for you.

As to an atheist church or organization, if you have not listened to the logic from key atheists and other sociological experts who know it takes organizations to fight organizations, then there is little I can tell you to convince you.

I certainly don't think atheists don't need to organize to support each other or oppose religious sectarians. I'm not sure how you got that impression. There are many such organizations that I support and admire. I simply said:

Sociology recognizes that we all have a tribal, hivish or groupish instinct. We want to belong to tribes/churches or groups.

I am not an atheist but FMPOV, the lowly representation of atheists. 10 odd %, is with us because atheists have not given their kind a place to exercise that groupish nature and if they do not, again FMPOV, atheists are not showing their social conscience even to their own children and grandchildren because they do not care enough about losing them to religions who do offer fellowship and an outlet for that hiveish instincts.

These sociologist also point out that no movement lasts long if people to not sacrifice to it somehow and in that way make it, pardon the word, sanctisanc.

Sociology recognizes that we all have a tribal, hivish or groupish instinct. We want to belong to tribes/churches or groups.

I am not an atheist but FMPOV, the lowly representation of atheists. 10 odd %, is with us because atheists have not given their kind a place to exercise that groupish nature and if they do not, again FMPOV, atheists are not showing their social conscience even to their own children and grandchildren because they do not care enough about losing them to religions who do offer fellowship and an outlet for that hiveish instincts.

And what, exactly, leads you to believe that atheists don't care about losing their children to religion? On the contrary, atheist parents are acutely aware of the challenge in raising children in overtly religious societies like the US. Thanks to the internet, it's far easier for such parents to organize, share concerns about instructors and schools that illegally indoctrinate kids and apply pressure to resolve such situations.

Quote

These sociologist also point out that no movement lasts long if people to not sacrifice to it somehow and in that way make it, pardon the word, sanctisanc.

Sociology recognizes that we all have a tribal, hivish or groupish instinct. We want to belong to tribes/churches or groups.

I am not an atheist but FMPOV, the lowly representation of atheists. 10 odd %, is with us because atheists have not given their kind a place to exercise that groupish nature and if they do not, again FMPOV, atheists are not showing their social conscience even to their own children and grandchildren because they do not care enough about losing them to religions who do offer fellowship and an outlet for that hiveish instincts.

And what, exactly, leads you to believe that atheists don't care about losing their children to religion? On the contrary, atheist parents are acutely aware of the challenge in raising children in overtly religious societies like the US. Thanks to the internet, it's far easier for such parents to organize, share concerns about instructors and schools that illegally indoctrinate kids and apply pressure to resolve such situations.

Quote

These sociologist also point out that no movement lasts long if people to not sacrifice to it somehow and in that way make it, pardon the word, sanctisanc.

It seems to me that the evidence shows atheists are quite ready to sacrifice time and money to further their chosen causes and appease their consciences.

Some are. Some, the majority, are not.

"And what, exactly, leads you to believe that atheists don't care about losing their children to religion?"

I floated my notions in a few of the atheist forums I check and found few who saw the benefits or were even interested in checking the experts I put up.

As a free thinker, I can recognize their independent attitude, and I share it, but that attitude should not include ignoring the fact that most people need fellowship and atheists should have future generations in mind.

I will check your links. Perhaps things are moving along faster than I think they are.

"And what, exactly, leads you to believe that atheists don't care about losing their children to religion?"

I floated my notions in a few of the atheist forums I check and found few who saw the benefits or were even interested in checking the experts I put up.

As a free thinker, I can recognize their independent attitude, and I share it, but that attitude should not include ignoring the fact that most people need fellowship and atheists should have future generations in mind.

I will check your links. Perhaps things are moving along faster than I think they are.

RegardsDL

Interesting. Could you give some links to those forums? Perhaps I'm as guilty as you in not seeing what's happening outside my self-constrained bubble, but that isn't a majority attitude in the atheist communities that I know. Most are quite conscious of their status as an oft-despised minority and the need to inform, educate and promote their views.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 07:59:13 PM by wright »

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius